and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Hide Tags

Show Tags

04 Jun 2008, 19:10

7

This post wasBOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

61%(02:46) correct
39%(02:29) wrong based on 88 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was circulated to its members for comment.When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be.Which of the following comments concerning the logic of the proposal is accurate if it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent to be nominated?

A. The proposal would make it possible for each of several nominees for an office to be aware of who all of the other nominees are.

B. The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees.

C. If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first.

D. The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known.

E. If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.

Show Tags

Show Tags

04 Jun 2008, 20:10

sebycb976 wrote:

The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was circulated to its members for comment.When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be.Which of the following comments concerning the logic of the proposal is accurate if it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent to be nominated?

A. The proposal would make it possible for each of several nominees for an office to be aware of who all of the other nominees are.

B. The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees.

C. If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first.

D. The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known.

E. If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.

I choose E because if there is more than one prospective nominee, no one will become nominee. It means if we have prospective official candidate, why we need other candidates!!!

For instance, Barrack Obama is prospective official Democratic president candidate. No one, including Hillary, will become official candidate.

Show Tags

Show Tags

05 Jun 2008, 06:30

sebycb976 wrote:

The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was circulated to its members for comment.When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be.Which of the following comments concerning the logic of the proposal is accurate if it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent to be nominated?

A. The proposal would make it possible for each of several nominees for an office to be aware of who all of the other nominees are.

B. The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees.

C. If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first.

D. The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known.

E. If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.

Took me 3 min. but I arrived at E. I was initially going to choose D, but decided to reread the question 1 more time.

Basically you need to know the names b/f you consent, but you can't know the names unless they have given their consent.

Show Tags

07 Dec 2012, 05:02

1

This post receivedKUDOS

1

This post wasBOOKMARKED

One good question...

The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was circulated to its members for comment.When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be. Before nomination must know the other candidates

Which of the following comments concerning the logic of the proposal is accurate if it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent to be nominated? this means a candidate will first give its consent to be nominated , then they are known to others

From above two are contradicting one is telling that they will know others then they will file nomination, other one tells that first they will file and then will be nominated.

A. The proposal would make it possible for each of several nominees for an office to be aware of who all of the other nominees are. not possible as we have an contradictory situation above

B. The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees. not possible as we have an contradictory situation above

C. If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first. out of context

D. The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known. out of context

E. If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee. Correct: there can be only one nominee _________________

If u can't jump the 700 wall , drill a big hole and cross it .. I can and I WILL DO IT ...need some encouragement and inspirations from U ALL

Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 20:59

sebycb976 wrote:

The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was circulated to its members for comment.When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be.Which of the following comments concerning the logic of the proposal is accurate if it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent to be nominated?

A. The proposal would make it possible for each of several nominees for an office to be aware of who all of the other nominees are.

B. The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees.

C. If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first.

D. The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known.

E. If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.

I'll go with E.

The bylaws states in a nutshell: if you want to be named for office, you must be told who you are running against before you give your consent. This only applies to MORE THAN ONE nominee.

The question basically says "You must give your consent first before you know who you are running against." and asks you to find the logical issue with the two statements.

A) Is a direct result of applying the bylaws. There is no issue here.

B) irrelevant

C) Nothing in the paragraph mentions preferential treaetment.

D) irrelevant

E) Correct answer. For one person, the bylaw does not apply. For more than 1 person, both statements apply and there is a logical issue. The issue comes from the fact that both statements cannot apply at once. It is one or the other.

Show Tags

16 Dec 2012, 00:37

2

This post receivedKUDOS

2

This post wasBOOKMARKED

sebycb976 wrote:

The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was circulated to its members for comment.When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be.Which of the following comments concerning the logic of the proposal is accurate if it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent to be nominated?

A. The proposal would make it possible for each of several nominees for an office to be aware of who all of the other nominees are.

B. The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees.

C. If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first.

D. The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known.

E. If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.

A deadlock situation, where one cannot move without the consent of another.

Suppose X and Y are nominees. X must know who is Y before giving consent. Similarly Y must know who is X before giving such consent.

Thus no one can give consent because no one knows who is the other nominee.
_________________

Show Tags

19 Jun 2014, 07:20

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Show Tags

10 Jun 2015, 08:18

sebycb976 wrote:

The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was circulated to its members for comment.When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be.Which of the following comments concerning the logic of the proposal is accurate if it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent to be nominated?

A. The proposal would make it possible for each of several nominees for an office to be aware of who all of the other nominees are.

B. The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees.

C. If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first.

D. The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known.

E. If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.

Show Tags

26 Aug 2016, 04:00

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

gmatclubot

Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an
[#permalink]
26 Aug 2016, 04:00